« McLaren at Davos | Main | What Rick Warren Said We Need to Do to Get to Heaven »


Shane Trammel


This is a very sober yet correct response to Rick Warren's unfounded call for reconciliation.

In contradiction to much ecumenism, the call to unity is to be pursued only upon the basis of "sound doctrine."

Get Machen's book: Christianity and Liberalism


I wholeheartedly agree. I have become increasingly disappointed in Rick Warren and his attempts to "mainstream" Christianity. This is the ultimate "seeker church gone wrong". We are willing to sacrifice Truth for acceptance. How sad.

Davis Ruiz

1 Corinthians 12:25-ench of chapter. Ephesians 4 whole chapter, the lord is bring in back his goverment. That is why satans is counter in all these other gospels. Read it carfully, ask the lord conferm his word with you.

Mike Ratlif

Well said Chris. I believe Rick Warren's call here is way out of line, but it should open the eyes of some to his hypocrisy and apostasy. Keep up the good work brother.

Mike Ratliff


Wow!!! What has happened to Rick Warren!? I get the he's wanting to get involved in caring for the poor and those stricken with AIDS. We as Christians could be doing a far better job on those issues. But asking us to reconcile with people who trash God's word, trample the scriptures and spit in Christ's face by denying his resurrection, his atonment and ordain women and homosexuals is like asking us to let Charles Manson out of prison as an act of kindness to him. I was so angry after reading that article that my blood was boiling. When is the SBC going to say enough is enough with this charlatan?!


Amen Brother Chris!

Ken Silva

I ask: Why is it so few seem to notice that by not preaching the Cross we are pleasing men but hurting our great God. The time we live in is not a time for unity; it is a time for division.

We need men anointed to preach the Gospel in the Holy Spirit and power. And they won't be sent until Christ's real Church separates from those like Rick Warren who employ man-centered ideas.

Rick Frueh

Good post. I am happy to see that there was a method in your madness about MacLaren!


I ran across this entry using a Google blog search in my RSS Feeder on the subject of Atonement. I didn't know the lean or subject of your blog, just jumped into this post.

I confess I have a problem with your conclusion. Though both Pastor Warren and you would likely agree that I am not a Christian, I am disappointed by the lack of kindness in this post. It's fine disagree with Pastor Warren, I belong to a movement that isn't interested in doctrinal ecumenicalism, but I just don't think that the Bible allows us to be so quick to wrath and harsh words.

As long there is mean-spiritedness and name-calling, I think the Lord is disappointed with all of us. We don't have to embrace others doctrine, but that doesn't mean we can't embrace them. I'll leave it to Christ to drive people from the temple.


Great points Chris!

Thanks for your words over at Phoenix Preacher as well.



I clicked over to your blog and noticed that you are LDS, so you and I probably have some disagreements over how to apply Scripture in this case, not to mention what IS Scripture.

Nevertheless, Chris is being entirely consistent with the New Testament in refusing to join with Rick Warren (and with liberal mainline churches) in a confessional or ecclesiastical way. Jesus, Paul -- they all were painfully speciic about what constituted the Gospel, what did not, and how we must keep the Gospel pure or else wind up perverting it. Paul was unequivocal in saying that if anyone preaches "another Gospel," which the liberal mainline churches do, "let him be accursed."

This is serious business. When people's spiritual destinies are at stake, you cannot compromise on truth for the sake of feeling good or being buddies.


Steve, I read and reread Chris' post. I don't see any meanness in it at all. When all doctrines become blended into one, then we will have the false church that we know someday will come. Chris is doing what the bible instructs each of us to do. To warn against all things that lead people away from the one and only true God, Jesus, and His church. In that there will always be sharp contrast, that becomes a dividing line. There is only one truth and is only found, in all that Jesus is, was and will always be. And there is only one Jesus. And He is not a blend of beliefs that are contrary to each other. I agree He will be the one who will judge our hearts (throw out the moneychangers). However we as christians have our reasonable service, commanded by God, to prove all things by scripture, sound the alarm when the wolves in sheeps clothing are leading sheep away, to walk in the spirit not the flesh and to pray unceasingly. To say RW is out of his mind isn't name calling. Anyone that has Holy fear of God, that reads the bible and still thinks it's okay to blend doctrines, cannot be in their right mind. If they do not have Holy fear of God, then they are, of a more sinister agenda. Chris actually (and rightfully) did not accuse RW on motive. If he had, he would've been judging RW's heart, and that would have been wrong. One day RW may have the truth hit home and he will repent and denounce how he has led his sheep astray. He won't have a chance unless he hears the truth.

Richard Abanes

Rick Warren, stated in this article: "The reconciliation is that in a pluralistic world…we (Christians) need to be on the same team because we share the same savior."

In English that means that Christians are living in a pluralistic world (DUH) and that because there are so many religions floating around in this pluralistic world (#2 DUH), then we as Christians need to stick together because, well, (DUH #3), we are Christians! (And this, BTW, seems to explain the new "P" for Promote Reconciliation n the P.E.A.C.E. Plan. I get it now.)

Warren apparently wants to bring the church together again, united in full force against the world's problems by: a) Encouraging evangelicals to start being more socially active, in obedience to James and other passages; and b) encouraging mainline churches to STOP with the social gospel, and bring the biblical Christ, redemption, and the Gospel message back into their social work.

Hmmm, sounds like a fairly admirable goal. It'll be interesting to watch. There certainly is nothing unbiblical, New Age, Satanic, or scary about it. It's a simple concept. And I have to say, I am very hopeful that Warren's evangelical influence MIGHT, it just MIGHT, bring mainline churches back toward the Gospel and the God/Savior that many of them abandoned decades ago (not all, but many).

The very title is, "Mainline Church Problems Need Evangelical Solution." So what does Warren say is the MAINLINE problem? Here: “100 years ago the phrase ‘social gospel’ first came out,' Warren responded. 'Some people took that to mean only if we reform the social government and society and not personal faith in Christ Jesus – that is, if we make the world a better place – we don’t need personal redemption . . . That idea led to mainline churches going 'one way' and evangelical churches going another way."

DID YOU GET IT? He's basically saying that the problem with mainline churches is that the mainline churches took the issue of "redemption" OUT of the equation of helping society. He then chided evangelical churches for making the church mission into NOTHING but evangelism. The solution to Warren is, balancing out both wings of Christianity, and thereby bringing them together.

1. Evangelicals need to start being more active SOCIALLY.
2. Mainline churches must bring redemption and personal faith in Christ back into their equation.

The article reads: "You can’t just love your neighbor; you got to love God,” Warren said. “And you can’t just love God; you have to love your neighbors. And mainline protestant and evangelical – we need both wings.”

Makes sense to me. I would think that all of us would be rejoicing. We've been screaming at mainline churches for years about how they've become nothing but a social institution and forgotten about Christ. Now finally, we have an evangelical that they might actually be interested in listening to, who is saying the same thing, and we're going to condemn him? Yikes.

I just don't get it. It makes me think even more strongly that what we are after is NOT unity, healing, peace, reconciliation, correction, and change, but rather, just continued fighting and having someone to point the heresy fingers at. It's almost as if we enjoy having an enemy. Odd, really odd.

OH, and by the way, can someone tell me where the word "Liberal" Churches actually appears in the article which is titled: "Mainline Church Problems Need Evangelical Solution." I couldn't seem to find anything but the word "Mainline" in the article. Could be my computer search function or something.

Help me out someone, please. I know you're all really concerned, as I am, with being absolutely precise and not coloring anything by bias or prejudice. Thank you so much in advance. Because, as I am sure it is obvious to all of you, inserting the word liberal into this issue, unless it were actually in the article, would unfairly color/change the thrust of the article. And exactly how that would occur, of course, is also self-evident.

I fully understand that many, as I stated above, many mainline churches are indeed liberal. And hopefully, that is something that Warren's involvement could change. Anyone want to pray for that? Or, instead, should we just start condemning him, his hopeful plan, and anyone who simply says, "hey, that might be a good idea."

R. Abanes

P.S. Chris, you made a little baby tear come up in my eye with that "Prince of Darkness" sensationalistic stuff. That was such a lay apologetics thing to do. ;-)

Chris Rosebrough


Hey thanks for stopping by and chiming in. Thanks for the pro-Warren interpretation of that article. It is important to hear different perspectives.

That being said, I am still going to disagree with your interpretation (and it is nothing personal against you).

1. The term Mainline refers to the OLD Mainline denominations like, Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, and Methodist. These denominations slipped into liberalism long long ago. They are the main proponents of the social gospel and they are the ones who ordain homosexuals, gut the Bible etc.

2. HERE is the MOST important difference I'll have with your interpretation. The primary difference between liberals and evangelicals is not that evangelicals Love God while liberals love their neighbor.

Mainline liberals certainly do love their 'version of god' and their 'version of Jesus' the problem is that they've redefined and re-imagined both and by doing so have fashioned an idol for themselves.

So when Rick Warren said that we share the same savior that simply is not true. Mainline liberals are NOT on our team in any way shape or form. Walter Martin's lecture on the Cult of Liberalism is very helpful here.

3 Warren is using 'Great Commandment' lingo here and that is further causing confusion. We are not saved by keeping the 'Great Commandment'. In fact, the primary purpose of the law is to expose our sin. So unifying with Mainline Liberals by saying that we have common ground on the 'Great Commandment' is also very problematic.

When we hear the commandment to Love God and Love Neighbor the first work of these commandments is to show us that we have sinned greatly against these commandments and are in dire need of repentance and forgiveness not just for the sins we committed the day before we received Christ's forgiveness but for the sins I committed today. Mainline liberals have not repented of their sins, they have instead condoned them and distract people away from the pending wrath of God by diverting people's attention to the do-good social Gospel and the mistaken idea that I can please God by fighting social injustices even if I've never repented and don't have faith in the Jesus of the scriptures.

Once again Warren's choice of words and fuzzy language requires a response that lays down firm Biblical limits and clear language. Because Warren's well meaning and well intentioned appeal to Mainline liberals made it sound like they share the same Savior as evangelicals and was missing the 'repentance' element I had no choice but to lay down a hard line.

Ken Silva

"I know you're all really concerned, as I am, with being absolutely precise and not coloring anything by bias or prejudice."

O please...

In the piece one can meet the "Jesus" of these liberal mainline denominations. Make up your own mind as to whether or not we share the same Savior:

Rick Warren and Jesus

And the folowing discusses the "Jesus" of the Mormon Church. Make up your own mind as to whether the LDS Church is Christian:

Mormon Church: Deity of Christ

Richard Abanes

hey Chris,

I hear you. I hear you.

I did a whole thing on the nasty, and terrifically offensive/BLASPHEMOUS Re-Imagining stuff that goes on in some of these mainline churches. See my info on that issue in, of all books, "Harry Potter and the Bible (pp. 217-220). So, believe me, I do hear you.

But I would add to this, now bear with me -- When Rick talks about mainlines loving Jesus, please please remember, Warren is a preacher/evangelist, he is NOT a counter-cult discernment expert. I would venture to say that both you and I have more knowledge regarding cults, the occult, and various related issues than he does. Oh, I am sure he's aware of the liberalism that is present in mainline churches, but I would also say that he is not nearly as aware of its depths to the degree that it exists in all its bizarre permutations. This is very much like how many pastors had no idea of Schuller's heresies for many years. Not until CRI started running exposes on Schuller did everyone start catching on to what he was really teaching.

Moreover, as bad as the mainline problem is, I would not be able to say ALL Methodist, Presbyterian, etc. churches are equally as bad. I recall going to a methodist church for a while on the side to help them out with their youth group. It was a Korean church. Yeah, it was boring as all get-out. The kids were practically tearing their eyes out from the place's lack of relevance to their lives. But it wasn't liberal by any means. So, those churches are out there, too. Not everyone is going to the Re-Imagining conferences. In fact, I am aware of various groups, especially within the United Methodists who are loudly decrying such antics and calling for a return to Biblical Methodism. Just a thought.

Now, as for my positive spin, I always try to believe and hope for the best in all things (1 Cor. 13). Unless I am faced with clear indications of heresy, aberration, compromise, etc., then I wait to see how things pan out. Look at what miraculous changes took place in The Worldwide Church of God. I was around in apologetics circles when that whole shift happened, and it was a very sensitive time. But God blessed and now the WWCG is orthodox.

These are just my thoughts so you can see my frame of reference and how I see things. When I lay down a "hard line," then it is a hard line without question, without reservation, without lack of hard substance --it is definitive. Here: SCHULLER IS A HERETIC. Now, when I say that, because I am so reserved about how I label things/people, then those who read my materials know that I have a very good reason for taking such a hard line. In fairy tale terms, you can't always cry "WOLF, WOLF."

No offense meant. I DO understand your animosity toward the terrifically heretical elements within mainline churches. I share those sentiments. I hope, pray, plead with God that this will FINALLY start bringing change -- hey, maybe it'll actually start bringing even more people OUT of the mainline churches because they see Jesus in us in a way that they never saw it at their conferences/churches. I THOUGHT we were supposed to be the ones going after the darkness and shining light onto it. Not running away from the darkness so that the darkness could continue to be dark.

R. Abanes

Richard Abanes

Dear Ken,

First, I am the last person you need to talk to about Mormonism. I have written two LENGTHY works on Mormonism, both on its history (One Nation Under Gods) and one on its theology (Inside Today's Mormonism). And at my website I have a comparison chart between what LDS teaches and what Christianity teaches (see http://abanes.com/cb_mb_chart.html). I've also written an article about how to witness to Mormons in the Southern Baptist Theological Journal (see http://abanes.com/SBTJessay.html). Do not EVEN begin talking to me as if I, in any way, are compromising when it comes to Mormons.

Second, regarding Rick Warren and his views on God, Jesus, salvation, the cross, sin, and hell, I suggest you read my two articles where I document exactly what is taught/believed by Warren and Saddleback.


I am under no illusion that you will take any of this correction, or probably even bother to look at the links I gave, but for the sake of truth, I owed it to other blog readers.

I would challenge you, right now, to produce any statement of mine, from anything I have written, that would contradict the faith once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). If you cannot produce that, the we must assume I am orthodox. And if I am orthodox, you must then explain why I, as an orthodox believer, would continue serving at, attending, and defending a church/pastor not teaching the essential doctrines of Christianity.

God will judge you for every falsehood, Ken. God will judge you.

R. Abanes

Chris Rosebrough


You bring up some GREAT points and I appreciate the fact that we are talking to each other rather than past each other.

In our last conversation I said something that I feel is very important to this discussion. I said that because Warren plays fast and loose with the scripture that he has actually MADE his critics and that these critics have a deep seeded distrust of him.

Speaking for myself at this point, I can say that I've worked through a spectrum of opinions regarding Warren.

I started off believing he was just like any other Southern Baptist brother in Christ, to thinking that he is just a bit sloppy with the scripture, to thinking that he is misguided but well meaning, to thinking that he is behaving like a wolf so I have to treat him as a wolf regardless of whether he is a brother or not. But, as you've insightfully pointed out my opinion is highly influenced because of my training in apologetics and experience in cult ministry.

I will say this, I think there are two Rick Warrens. There is a Rick Warren that existed prior to Kay's fight with cancer and the publishing of the PDL and a different Warren after both.

Here is where I have to be careful. I actually agree with Warren that the American Church has become 'self-absorbed' and has been doing a really bad job at loving their neighbors and all of the actions that go with that.

I also agree with Warren that we need to go and meet darkness rather than run from it. So please understand that Warren and I have some common ground here.

That being said we must speak the truth when we meet darkness and we must not compromise that truth. Saying that we share the same savior with mainline liberals is a compromise precisely because it is not true. Telling unbelievers that God is happy with them when they are being themselves and using the gifts God has given them to make the world a better place is a compromise precisely because it is not true.

When Warren runs around saying we need a Second Reformation of deeds NOT creeds that is a compromise because the Biblical standard is creeds AND deeds, or as James says, "Faith without works is dead."

These issues are ones that I believe are Biblically non-negotiable. No pastor regardless of their intentions or special calling as an evangelist has the Biblical wiggle room to tell 'little white lies' about God and people's standing before God even if they are doing that as part of a larger strategy to reach out and open lines of communication so that he can ultimately present them with the 'real truth'.

In fact, the people he is reaching out to could accuse him of being EXTREMELY deceptive with them. Here's why...

Pretend I am a mainline liberal homosexual minister in the Episcopal church and I was in attendance at Warren's lecture at the National Cathedral and I heard Warren say to me that I share the SAME SAVIOR as the Evangelicals. I might be thrilled to hear this information and think 'wow here is a man who gets it' and here is a man who is willing to look past all of these narrow doctrinal divisions that conservatives keep harping on and he is telling me that he believes that we are Christian brothers.

BUT later I speak with Warren privately and he shares the 'real gospel with me' and tells me that because I am a practicing homosexual that I need to repent and furthermore because I believe that God is a female and not a trinity of Father Son and Holy Spirit that I ACTUALLY have to change my doctrine of God or Rick Warren doesn't believe that I am really saved and not really his brother in Christ. If that happened I would be OUTRAGED and think that Warren is the biggest politician, sham and liar on the planet, and I'd be right in thinking those things.

So my position regarding Warren at this point is that by compromising the message by compromising the truth he is actually working against any evangelistic goals that he may have.

Loving our neighbors ALSO includes speaking the truth to them.

Ken Silva

"First, I am the last person you need to talk to about Mormonism."

You may wish to check the ego Richard. I wasn't even talking to you. That was for those speaking with Steve above.

"God will judge you for every falsehood, Ken. God will judge you."

As He will you Rchard; as He will you.

Richard Abanes

CHRIS: When Warren runs around saying we need a Second Reformation of deeds NOT creeds that is a compromise because the Biblical standard is creeds AND deeds, or as James says, "Faith without works is dead."
RESPONSE: Okay, let me add some info here regarding this oft-mentioned quote. Let me stress, Chris, that Warren is not saying we need to GET RID of the creeds, and replace them with deeds. Notice, he is directly talking about what the NEW Reformation that needs to occur, and THAT is about deeds, not creeds. WHY? Ask it. Go ahead. Say it aloud:

Question: Why would a Second Reformation be about deeds, but not about creeds?

Answer: Because the First Reformation, begin by Luther himself, was about the creeds!!!!

Notice, Chris, Warren is not saying replace or abandon the First Reformation. He is saying, we got doctrinal things settled in the First reformation (creeds/spiritual). Now, we are still in need of a Second Reformation (deeds/social).

CHRIS: Pretend I am a mainline liberal homosexual minister in the Episcopal church
RESPONSE: I understand you. But you are inventing scenarios. It's a what-if that goes beyond what is simply transpiring as reality unfolds. I can invent a scenario too, except in the opposite direction. A pastor of a United Methodist church somewhere who has been fighting liberalism and these crazy goddess feminists hears what Warren says and falls on his face thanking the Lord for someone as powerful/influential as Warren who says, "You mainliners need to at Jesus, and redemption, and the Gospel back into things." You see, we are both inventing things that don't yet exist. Let us both hope/pray for this to go God's way, that our lost sheep drawn away into error will listen, hear, and we'll see a revival like the ones in the Second Great Awakening.

This boils down to two different approaches of how to accomplish a similar goal. You do yours the way God has called you to do it. yes. Good I rejoice. Only let others to do it in ways they feel is best. As long as they stay faithful to the faith (Jude 3).

R. Abanes

Richard Abanes

Ken: You may wish to check the ego Richard. I wasn't even talking to you. That was for those speaking with Steve above.

RA: Hmm, it seemed you were talking about me because I read, your jab at me, "I know you're all really concerned, as I am, with being absolutely precise and not coloring anything by bias or prejudice. O please..." Then you mention Warren and believing in another Jesus (false), followed by the LDS remark. Posting a bit clearer would help. I read it again, and tbh, it still looks a bit muddy.

But be that as it may, there was no ego in my reply, but rather, a pointed desire to show you that I feel the LDS Jesus/church is just as false/unbiblical as you.

KEN: "God will judge you for every falsehood, Ken. God will judge you." As He will you Richard; as He will you.

RA: Indeed. And I sleep very well at night. I shall be very glad in the coming weeks to update all of my information on you for the world to read at their leisure. Truth, my friend, is not on your side. I urge you to please reconsider the path you have been on, and are continuing to walk, allegedly in service to Christ and in the name of defending the faith.

I pray for you, and I do bid you peace. But I also will not shrink away from bring correction where correction is needed. :-)

R. Abanes

Ken Silva

"Indeed. And I sleep very well at night." Well, me too.

"I shall be very glad in the coming weeks to update all of my information on you for the world to read at their leisure." You do whatever you feel you need to.

I have my own information Richard, and I also would say, "Truth, my friend, is not on your side."

"I pray for you, and I do bid you peace. But I also will not shrink away from bring correction where correction is needed. :-)"

As I do for you; however, I myself will not be shrinking away from correcting where correcting is needed. :-)

And Richard, I also urge you to please reconsider the path you have been on, and are continuing to walk, allegedly in service to Christ and in the name of defending the faith.

Please listen to Chris; he's right in this.


There's some merit about true Christians being on the same page, but just to say everyone claiming Christ should be able to fellowship together is pretty off-base.
If what Jesus said in the Bible about Hell is not true (some "Christians" now say there is no hell...it's make-believe), then who would want to follow Him? My Savior is no liar, and I don't want to "fellowship" with persons who consider Him to be one. Also, there is no basis for fellowship with those who don't believe in a God powerful enough to keep Holy Scripture around for His children to read and believe.
People who insist on using man-made philosophies to thumb their noses at the clear proclamation of Spirit-inspired Bible references that homosexuality is an abomination,and Bishops are to "be the husband of one wife", etc., are not fit company for Bible-believing Christians.

Chris Rosebrough


I've heard from many Warren friendly people who've told me that Warren isn't arguing against creeds and that he thinks that now that we know what we believe we need to address deeds as well.

The problem here is twofold.

1. It is not accurate to say that the first reformation was about creeds. I invite you to spend some time in the Lutheran Confessions and in the Westminster Confessions. The topic of deeds and the fruit of faith make up a large portion of those documents.

2. The way Warren ALWAYS talks about "his" second reformation is that we "need a reformation of deeds, NOT creeds.

I am far from the only theologian to take issue with the fact that he says the word NOT. By using the word NOT it gives the appearance that he's attacking Creeds and downplaying their importance.

So, I'll make a deal with you. When Warren stops saying 'deeds NOT creeds' but instead changes his schtick to say "deeds AND creeds" or the "deeds that flow from correct creeds" THEN I will publicly applaud him for making that change and speaking correctly about this issue.

Next, yes I invented the scenario about the homosexual minister and I am willing to concede your point that not all pastors in mainline denominations are liberals (however conservative pastors are in the minority in these mainline churches). The real issue at stake is the ramifications of 'telling white lies' as a means of building bridges and reaching out to mainline liberals.

I agree with you that we truly have two different approaches here. But ultimately the right and wrong way of approaching this issue cannot be determined by our subjective feelings (unless you're willing to concede that a Mormon's burning in the bosom is proof that the BOM is true). Instead, we must compare these approaches to the clear teachings of God's word.

I reject Warren's approach because of three very clear instructions given in scripture.

1. Not to bear false witness.
2. Not to Take the Lord's name in vain.
3. Teach the whole council of God's word.

Warren is right to LOVINGLY reach out to Mainline liberals. But, telling them they share the same savior as conservative evangelicals is problematic at best and in many cases is an outright falsehood.

I hold the same assessment regarding Warren's talk at the 2006 TED. He was right to lovingly reach out to this audience of unbelievers. He was dead wrong when he twisted Psalm 72 and when he told them that God gets pleasure watching them be themselves.

I want Warren to continue to reach out to unbelievers and Jews and to build bridges between the left and the right wings of the visible Christian church. But he needs to speak the truth when he does or his efforts are not really building God's kingdom but are instead working against it by scandalizing and dividing the body of Christ.

Richard Abanes

CHRIS: etc etc etc

RA: Fine. Whatever. You're younger than me, and at my age I haven't got the energy any more to split these kinds of hairs hour, after hour, after hour. Whatever. I wish you the best. If you think things can be done better - than by all means, do it. And I mean that. Go for it.


R. Abanes



Your last comment on deeds and creeds is right on. I've heard this same thing from Rick Warren, and I don't think you are splitting hairs at all.

The right way for all Christians to think is that "deeds flow from creeds" so to speak. And in fact, the Apostle Paul sets up almost all of his epistles this way as well. The first half is generally about doctrine, the second half is about putting it into practice. Paul set up right actions based on a right knowledge (though none of us have a perfect knowledge).

And by the way, when Rick Warren tells us that many of us already know far more than we are putting into practice, the apostle would likely suggest the opposite remedy. If a true believer doesn't have an active faith, one that does right actions, it's because they have a wrong understanding. So in that case, such a person should pray and study MORE, because right knowledge leads to right deeds. The solution is not to stop studying and simply start doing more.

Thank you for your excellent insights here Chris. Keep up the good work.

Ken Silva

Yeah, what Jim said.


Jim:The solution is not to stop studying and simply start doing more.
Of course, studying the Bible does show up people "Wresting Scripture", doesn't it?
How convenient for the false teachers (and heretics).
No wonder that those who want to hijack the orthodox Christian faith say that they don't believe, or need, the Bible.


Richard - how old are you? I've heard that Chris Rosebrough is about to go 'over the hill'. Rumor has it that his oldest kid is college age.


I find it interesting that Mr. Abanes, decides to end the conversation with the statement of "Fine. Whatever. You're younger than me, and at my age I haven't got the energy any more to split these kinds of hairs hour, after hour, after hour. Whatever. I wish you the best. If you think things can be done better - than by all means, do it. And I mean that. Go for it."

Mr. Abanes gives us the old, "whatever" because he can't argue the points that Chris R. has laid out on where RW is unbiblical.

The conversation often abruptly ends with many today, when you point to clear instruction in scripture that calls out their favorite "Popular Christian Leader", insert name.

God bless.


Todd - that is a good point. My daughter always says 'whatever' or 'fine' when she doesn't like what I am telling her and she knows I am right. I think Chris is right. We must reach out in love but when we do we must reach out with the truth. Doesn't the bible say that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? I find it odd that a man who has written books about the mormon church and its errors is giving a pass to Rick Warren when he twists the scriptures. I don't understand the double standard. why is it wrong for mormons to twist the bible but its okay for Rick Warren to do the same thing?


The fact that Warren is calling for union shows he does not study God's Word. Or, if he does, he doesn't take it literally.

Jesus never said He came to bring unity. He didn't come to bring peace when He walked this earth. He said that He came to bring a sword....that sword will cause division.



I would like to invite readers at this blog to please watch the message at the following link. I also hope that you will be motivated to share your comments!

Marriage: The Image of God

Go to the site and click on the arrow on the right of that particular message.

When you view this video, you will see what the illicit sexual battles being faced by the church today are really all about. The fact is, it is not really only a physical battle, but more importantly, an ultimate type of spiritual battle that is transpiring.

Christine W.

Hugh McCann

Like a ship in the night, R.W. appears to be passing those regenerate folk who are COMING OUT of their apostate denominations.

3 years ago, he addressed a group of faithful American Anglicans who were/ are coming out of the Episcopal Church. He gave them his P-D cheer-leading: www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_270.shtml.

Now, the Anglican Communion is thankfully on the brink of dissolution, as faithful Africans and others say, "Nyet" to sodomites, priestesses, and other abominations.

R.W. even applauded bishops who have boycotted the Lambeth conference this year.

Yet Warren today also wants to UNITE heretics and the faithful, apostasy and fidelity?! He must think he can single-handedly overturn 2 Cor. 6:14-7:1. All this was outlined by R.W. himself in the May, 2005 Pew Forum interview: www.pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80.

Who's following the Spirit?

Look out!

Michael Grunewald

Warren is attempting to bring the very gates of hell to the doorstep of the church. Sorry Rick - we won't jump in bed with the side that destined for destruction. There is no 4th quarter comeback. The game has been over for better than 2000 years.

David D. Flowers

I personally don’t want to discount some of the good things that Rick Warren has done in his ministry, but I have been concerned about a great deal of his comments and activities over the last several years. He has become “America’s Pastor” and this alone should clue us in to asking, “Why is he liked by so many non-Christians?”

Although I certainly don’t agree with his ecclesiology, I find it most disturbing that his writings, messages, and political involvement are slowly pushing “Jesus” out of the picture altogether. Without going into too much detail, any Christian that obtains such a public platform, as Warren has in the last few years, causes me to take a step back and say, “How is it that he is so popular?”

Jesus had about a year there where he was popular. (In the midst of a year of obscurity and a final year of rejection.) And I am not just speaking about the Jews flocking to Jesus, but sinners too! So it forces us to look at the reason for Rick Warren’s popularity (or anyone else for that matter). If the United States is a secular as we all know it to be, then how is it that Warren is called upon to be a spokesperson for American Christians? Is he popular for the same reasons that people were being drawn to Christ? Will he at any point be rejected as Christ was?

Billy Graham has even admitted that his crusading tactics and his increasing involvement in politics was something he would do differently had he to do it all over again. The world has a way of changing a person’s original “sold-out” commitment to Christ alone. We Christians are so easily distracted by external worldly things (low-high church attendance, the desire for uniformity, church as organization instead of spiritual organism, etc.). I would say this is what we are seeing with Warren.

I agree with this bloggers statements that we can’t unite ourselves with people who deny orthodox Christian teaching (the teachings of Jesus and the apostles). It would seem that this is what Rick Warren would have Christians do. I do believe that heresy hunting never served the church well throughout church history. Nevertheless, we must never agree in fellowship with those who wish to compromise orthodoxy for the sake of “getting along.”

On a side note: I think the blogger has misrepresented Brian McLaren. I have read several of his books. I am personal friends with an author who knows Brian personally. Much that is said about Brian by his opponents is taken out of context and a rush to judgment. I even heard Ravi Zacharias make a comment about McLaren's book "The Secret Message of Jesus." His comment clearly revealed he had not even read his book. Brian asks questions that make people nervous. But as far as I can tell, the man is a true believer in Christ. He loves the Lord and wants to see a revolution in the church just like the rest of us.

I don’t propose we respond to any person in a way that doesn’t prove to be a representation of Christ. Christ-character must always come before a statement of doctrinal purity. It doesn’t matter how clean your doctrine may be... when you stop walking in Christ toward other believers, you do more damage than any heretic that has ever lived.

David D. Flowers


Every body understands that life seems to be not cheap, but we require money for various issues and not every one earns big sums cash. Therefore to receive good home loans and just bank loan would be a proper solution.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter